Rural Foundation for Community Advancement

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020544815
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Earlimart, CA, USA
Phone
6618493950
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,127
Expenses
$19,375
Assets
$58,461

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jose R Villalobos (President)
  • Domingo Trevino (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jose R Villalobos (President)
  • Domingo Trevino (Vice President)
  • Joe Mendoza (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the organization is to improve the economic and well-being status of the non-incorporated rural community of Earlimart and elsewhere.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided economic assistance by means of givaways on Thanksgiving and Christmas. In addition provided a means for children to participate in Babe Ruth Leagues in Delano and Porterville.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.5%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 46.6%; rating input score 47

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.02; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.5% of revenue deployed · 46.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.